PDA

View Full Version : Republican Candidate Donald Trump - Winner of the 2016 US Presidential Race


PinkFloyd
November 9th, 2016, 02:41 AM
http://i.imgur.com/wRQ4Fxp.png

http://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/2016-election-day-results-live-analysis

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=who%20won%20the%20election&eob=enn/o//////////////

Stronk Serb
November 9th, 2016, 03:09 AM
The Reich will rise to last a thousand years! A great day for the world and for the USA.

Babs
November 9th, 2016, 03:17 AM
Welp, I guess I have to eat a hat.

Hideous
November 9th, 2016, 03:20 AM
welp, time to send me to conversion camp! grats, trump. if u gonna bind the wounds of division, then please do so

Abhorrence
November 9th, 2016, 03:25 AM
Ah yes, your new president is the one who's team had to confirm to the world that there was nothing to fear for the world if he did become president. The fact that they even had to confirm that says everything.

Ragle
November 9th, 2016, 03:38 AM
The Reich will rise to last a thousand years! A great day for the world and for the USA.

I'll call it Great Germerica 3345.

Paraxiom
November 9th, 2016, 04:39 AM
The more interesting of the effective two options.

Time to test my first prediction.

(I'm honestly not fazed majorly by this.)

Mars
November 9th, 2016, 07:05 AM
Haha oh we're so fucked dude what have we done

Melodic
November 9th, 2016, 07:35 AM
I'm honestly scared right now. I'm scared for myself. I'm scared for my friends, family, acquaintances, and colleagues. Here's hoping we stay strong and make sure our voices are heard!

Jinglebottom
November 9th, 2016, 07:47 AM
I didn't actually expect this to happen.

Stronk Serb
November 9th, 2016, 07:49 AM
Haha oh we're so fucked dude what have we done

I'm honestly scared right now. I'm scared for myself. I'm scared for my friends, family, acquaintances, and colleagues. Here's hoping we stay strong and make sure our voices are heard!

Why scared? I mean it's not like he wanted to be like Clinton and enforce a no-fly zone in Syria which would mean targeting Russian planes. What 70 years of US and Russian foreign policy tried to avoid, a direct confrontation of the nuclear giants, would've happened in the first 100 days of her presidential term.

Typhlosion
November 9th, 2016, 07:51 AM
http://i.imgur.com/tMFqReb.jpg

PlasmaHam
November 9th, 2016, 07:55 AM
:D Yes! even though I'm not a huge Trump supporter, I am extremely glad he won. Anything your be better than Clinton administration 2.0 won:woot::usflag:
It is also great that basically the Republicans now control all three Federal branches.

I can't wait for mattsmith48 to get the news, he'll probably have a heart attack.

Melodic
November 9th, 2016, 08:36 AM
Why scared? I mean it's not like he wanted to be like Clinton and enforce a no-fly zone in Syria which would mean targeting Russian planes. What 70 years of US and Russian foreign policy tried to avoid, a direct confrontation of the nuclear giants, would've happened in the first 100 days of her presidential term.

That point aside. I didn't think either of the presidential nominees were the best fit for office, but Hilary Clinton was obviously more qualified/experienced to do the job for the next four years. Right now, we have a president who actively promotes discrimination towards a large percent of our American citizens such as the Hispanic, African-American, LGBTQ, and Muslim communities. I'm scared that our country is divided and put in a place where the crime rate and U.S national debt will increase.

Bull
November 9th, 2016, 09:02 AM
GOD HELP US! America has elected a racist, shoot from the hip, egotistical abuser of women as president. We are in for a rough 4 years, if he makes it that long (he may be in jail). Time to suck it up and give him hell in every was possible. I am surprised at the current state of American culture/politics. I thought we were on a more progressive route to prosperity. So we will see how this plays out in the World.

Uniquemind
November 9th, 2016, 09:22 AM
GOD HELP US! America has elected a racist, shoot from the hip, egotistical abuser of women as president. We are in for a rough 4 years, if he makes it that long (he may be in jail). Time to suck it up and give him hell in every was possible. I am surprised at the current state of American culture/politics. I thought we were on a more progressive route to prosperity. So we will see how this plays out in the World.

That's only because of New York and California.

The middle America has always been largely red and conservative.

lyhom
November 9th, 2016, 09:30 AM
lol

it'll be good seeing the buyers remorse that will inevitably happen when trump fucks up

phuckphace
November 9th, 2016, 10:16 AM
PinkFloyd

it's time to ditch the condoms and Plan B and go full 14/88, okay? do your part to make America white again :D

ThisBougieLife
November 9th, 2016, 10:18 AM
Right now Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. Will be interesting to say what happens with that.

Paraxiom
November 9th, 2016, 10:32 AM
Right now Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. Will be interesting to say what happens with that.

My prediction: Bad riots, though admittedly not necessarily critically because of that. If it is even just a factor in the riots though, then the people are implicitly saying that they refuse to accept the US presidential election system. I'm fine with that, so long as the people are consistent with that message wherever relevant elsewhere.

PinkFloyd
November 9th, 2016, 11:32 AM
PinkFloyd

it's time to ditch the condoms and Plan B and go full 14/88, okay? do your part to make America white again :D

god damn am I gonna miss Planned Parenthood

EuRo
November 9th, 2016, 03:00 PM
wew lad trump won.

I expected Shillary to win. I'm glad Trump won because he'll piss off the regressive liberals. I don't like, though, that basically all three branches are composed up of Republicans. I'd like to see some variation because I'm centrist and not really on the liberal or conservative side.

DVDan19
November 9th, 2016, 03:39 PM
Hey guys hello from Europe !
...
...
...
...
...and good luck...

everlong
November 9th, 2016, 05:14 PM
He'll stand out next to all the other presidents in elementary school hallways

Microcosm
November 9th, 2016, 06:04 PM
#notmypresident

Admittedly, I didn't see this coming, but it should be noted that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton.

It makes me sad, knowing the kind of person Trump is. I'm willing to admit defeat here, though.

Our climate will be defeated. Our minorities will be defeated. And I predict America will be more split than ever.

DerBear
November 9th, 2016, 08:18 PM
Americans are stupid.....

What more can I say?

Hyper
November 9th, 2016, 09:39 PM
Its like some people believe death squads will be out on the streets now lol...

PlasmaHam
November 9th, 2016, 10:33 PM
Its like some people believe death squads will be out on the streets now lol...

Yea:P All the while, "tolerant" Hillary supporters are violently protesting the Trump win by vandalizing and rioting.

Stronger
November 10th, 2016, 01:05 AM
That's only because of New York and California.

The middle America has always been largely red and conservative.

Wanna look at that map again?

Uniquemind
November 10th, 2016, 02:59 AM
Yea:P All the while, "tolerant" Hillary supporters are violently protesting the Trump win by vandalizing and rioting.

Yeah that I cannot support. They're hurting small businesses that create jobs, just stupid, and actually gives me some happiness Trump won, because when stuff like that happens it gives the new-conservatives some legitimacy.



Wanna look at that map again?


This current map had most of New England's original 13 colonies.

But as a statement, the center/middle america has always been conservative.

Desynchronized
November 10th, 2016, 03:40 AM
Life is strange

Porpoise101
November 10th, 2016, 05:31 PM
But as a statement, the center/middle america has always been conservative.
They may have had conservative values, but the formerly industrialized states had a long union presence and that made them blue/purple for about 100 years.

PlasmaHam
November 10th, 2016, 07:49 PM
They may have had conservative values, but the formerly industrialized states had a long union presence and that made them blue/purple for about 100 years.
That is true for most of the Northeast and Midwest states. Back in the high days of American manufacturing and business, they were almost all blue states. I think that the recent swing towards conservatism and the Republicans have come in large part to the dissatisfaction with the Democrats and their management of crime and declining industry. I feel if Trump and the Republican Congress can appropriately help these areas, then we might seeing a greater shift of conservatism back towards the North, like it was in the early 1800s.

Porpoise101
November 10th, 2016, 08:43 PM
That is true for most of the Northeast and Midwest states. Back in the high days of American manufacturing and business, they were almost all blue states. I think that the recent swing towards conservatism and the Republicans have come in large part to the dissatisfaction with the Democrats and their management of crime and declining industry. I feel if Trump and the Republican Congress can appropriately help these areas, then we might seeing a greater shift of conservatism back towards the North, like it was in the early 1800s.
I think this phenomenon will happen as you say as well, albeit for different reasons. Let's layout what we know about population shifts in the US and demographic changes in the US:

The South is Growing and the North is Dying-The Sun Belt is growing in population and it is attracting younger, more affluent and highly educated people. The reverse is happening in the North.
Increased Minority Voters-More immigrants + their descendants will vote. Some will become more conservative, most not though
Ascension of Minorities-Minorities are rising up in American society faster than ever. This will make more of them fiscally conservative perhaps, but they are still moderate liberals.
Young People are More Liberal-The younger people tend to see themselves as self-righteous progressives, similar to the progs of the early 20th century.

Given all these things are true, and they are with what we know today, I can predict that the influx of minorities and liberal techies and artists to the South will begin to make the South more purple. We saw a peak of that in Georgia and Texas even this election earlier on. In fact, the only steadfastly conservative holdout was going to be South Carolina until a few weeks ago when Trump really turned it around. All of these young people have to come from somewhere. And coming from Michigan, I have firsthand experience. I know no college educated people that are younger than 30 personally which are staying in our little Rust Belt state. Instead, they are flocking to Austin, San Francisco, Tampa, Atlanta, and Savannah. Why? Because that's where the new good-paying jobs are. Some people are moving to Atlantic cities like NYC or DC, but that isn't the trend my friend. With all of these people moving South, it seems as if the South and North will be purplish and divided by class.

Babs
November 11th, 2016, 12:06 AM
Let's be real here, even though Trump is pretty shitty, he's not going to destroy America. Worst case scenario, we have a mediocre president for eight years maximum. He can't just take away gay marriage, that's Supreme Court biznez and they've already deemed it a constitutional right. He can't just snap his finger and have to whole country up in flames. Because the president doesn't have absolute power. imo, the worst thing about him as a president will probably have less to do with domestic policy.

He's the president now, and we're just gonna have to hope for the best and make the most of it. He wouldn't be the first shitty president we've ever had.

Hyper
November 11th, 2016, 05:12 AM
Let's be real here, even though Trump is pretty shitty, he's not going to destroy America. Worst case scenario, we have a mediocre president for eight years maximum. He can't just take away gay marriage, that's Supreme Court biznez and they've already deemed it a constitutional right. He can't just snap his finger and have to whole country up in flames. Because the president doesn't have absolute power. imo, the worst thing about him as a president will probably have less to do with domestic policy.

He's the president now, and we're just gonna have to hope for the best and make the most of it. He wouldn't be the first shitty president we've ever had.

I'm not sure how that supreme court biznez works in the US...

But I do remember there were many people saying that the decision in itself was unconstitutional since it violated individual state rights or something like that...

In general, and in history, if there is enough political will anything becomes possible. Though I would hope the ''issue'' of gay marriage doesn't warrant such massive will.

Babs
November 11th, 2016, 11:14 AM
I'm not sure how that supreme court biznez works in the US...

But I do remember there were many people saying that the decision in itself was unconstitutional since it violated individual state rights or something like that...

In general, and in history, if there is enough political will anything becomes possible. Though I would hope the ''issue'' of gay marriage doesn't warrant such massive will.

I'm just referring to the massive dramatic reaction to the election results. Many people out there are worried about certain rights, etc., and that was just one example. My point being that Trump can't just fuck shit up when the mood strikes him; it's more complicated than that.

Vlerchan
November 11th, 2016, 11:42 AM
He can't just take away gay marriage, that's Supreme Court biznez and they've already deemed it a constitutional right.
Whilst the court prefers not to overturn constituenal precedent - see: the Nixon appointments and there court in the 7/80s - it is possible that the same-sex marriage ruling could be overturned if Trump stacked the court well enough.

Recall that Clinton was running part of her campaign on nominating justices that would overturn the precedent that establishes dthe right to make political donations as contained in the right to free speech.

I agree with the central point nevertheless.

But I do remember there were many people saying that the decision in itself was unconstitutional since it violated individual state rights or something like that...
That might make it unconstitutional for government to impose a federal law implementing same-sex marriage as a right - But it doesn't begin to touch the jurisprudence that the right to same-sex marriage was established under in the Supreme Court.

StoppingTom
November 11th, 2016, 12:39 PM
i think i belong to the very small group of people that haven't been personally insulted/victimized (the straight white upper-middle class male) but my LGBT friends are TERRIFIED, my muslim friends are TERRIFIED, my POC friends are TERRIFIED, my friends who have parents/relatives that are immigrants are TERRIFIED they'll lose them, my female friends are TERRIFIED they can't make decisions over their own body

we've had presidents we certainly did not like, even despised, but people are legitimately afraid for their safety now

PlasmaHam
November 11th, 2016, 02:50 PM
i think i belong to the very small group of people that haven't been personally insulted/victimized (the straight white upper-middle class male) but my LGBT friends are TERRIFIED, my muslim friends are TERRIFIED, my POC friends are TERRIFIED, my friends who have parents/relatives that are immigrants are TERRIFIED they'll lose them, my female friends are TERRIFIED they can't make decisions over their own body
How about y'all move to Qatar? After all, your Clinton accepted millions of dollars from them without any qualms. And Clinton had repeatedly said that Muslims are just peaceful people.

Your black friends will be thrown into slavery, your gay friends will be thrown off buildings, your illegal immigrants will be shot, and your women friends will be legally raped. Your Jewish friend will be immediately killed, and you will probably be killed too if you openly challenge Islam. But hey, Clinton supported them, so they must be perfect!


http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/14955960_950438548423516_9212813845368986683_n-500x333.jpg
we've had presidents we certainly did not like, even despised, but people are legitimately afraid for their safety now
Generation Snowflake! Overreacting and making a hissy-fit whenever things don't go their way.

Paraxiom
November 11th, 2016, 05:25 PM
#notmypresident

Admittedly, I didn't see this coming, but it should be noted that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton.

I don't intend to oppose you, but the election system is such that, in certain circumstances, the popular vote does not elect.

By all means question the election system itself, though not only because of this election.


It makes me sad, knowing the kind of person Trump is. I'm willing to admit defeat here, though.

I'm fully sympathetic with those who are protesting his victory, but the protesting is not the pragmatic/realistic way to go here. It will not help that much, if at all.

I'd prefer if these protests will not turn into riots.


Our climate will be defeated. Our minorities will be defeated. And I predict America will be more split than ever.

In a way, 'in the political realm', the US is actually a geographic superposition of two major incommensurable political forces. It has capacity to fuel a civil war.


Its like some people believe death squads will be out on the streets now lol...

Possible (not probable though).


Yea:P All the while, "tolerant" Hillary supporters are violently protesting the Trump win by vandalizing and rioting.

I don't think that violent protests through vandalism in rioting is a major thing yet. Regardless of if it will be or not, you're exaggerating what is currently happening.


Life is strange

When is it not?


Let's be real here, even though Trump is pretty shitty, he's not going to destroy America. Worst case scenario, we have a mediocre president for eight years maximum. He can't just take away gay marriage, that's Supreme Court biznez and they've already deemed it a constitutional right. He can't just snap his finger and have to whole country up in flames. Because the president doesn't have absolute power. imo, the worst thing about him as a president will probably have less to do with domestic policy.

He's the president now, and we're just gonna have to hope for the best and make the most of it. He wouldn't be the first shitty president we've ever had.

I'm expecting something more 'colourful' than a shitty/mediocre president, but he certainly will have nothing like general omnipotence or intention to directly destroy the US, agreed.


But I do remember there were many people saying that the decision in itself was unconstitutional since it violated individual state rights or something like that...

I've heard of this before and I don't know enough to think that I do or will know if that was the case or not, so I'm open to the possibility.


In general, and in history, if there is enough political will anything becomes possible. Though I would hope the ''issue'' of gay marriage doesn't warrant such massive will.

Yes.


i think i belong to the very small group of people that haven't been personally insulted/victimized (the straight white upper-middle class male) but my LGBT friends are TERRIFIED, my muslim friends are TERRIFIED, my POC friends are TERRIFIED, my friends who have parents/relatives that are immigrants are TERRIFIED they'll lose them, my female friends are TERRIFIED they can't make decisions over their own body

we've had presidents we certainly did not like, even despised, but people are legitimately afraid for their safety now

I feel that some of the fears are irrational, but as for others, we'll see what happens.


How about y'all move to Qatar? After all, your Clinton accepted millions of dollars from them without any qualms. And Clinton had repeatedly said that Muslims are just peaceful people.

You're assuming that people against Trump were also for Clinton.

Significant support for Clinton was implicit support against Trump.

I can also ask you why you won't go personally to help in building the presumptive wall-to-be, because you are for Trump.

Furthermore, the presence of Muslims is not the same as the presence of a government's sharia law 'around' you.


Your black friends will be thrown into slavery, your gay friends will be thrown off buildings, your illegal immigrants will be shot, and your women friends will be legally raped. Your Jewish friend will be immediately killed, and you will probably be killed too if you openly challenge Islam. But hey, Clinton supported them, so they must be perfect!

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that being a Muslim analytically implies wholesome support for sharia law.


Generation Snowflake! Overreacting and making a hissy-fit whenever things don't go their way.

There is presence of airy-fairy viewpoints around for sure, but not across what you're saying it is.

Microcosm
November 11th, 2016, 06:55 PM
I don't intend to oppose you, but the election system is such that, in certain circumstances, the popular vote does not elect.

By all means question the election system itself, though not only because of this election.


Yes, I know. I do not think the protests against Trump's victory are justified either. We should really direct that energy at the electoral college.

In a way, 'in the political realm', the US is actually a geographic superposition of two major incommensurable political forces. It has capacity to fuel a civil war.

I agree. I was actually reading "Democracy in America" and de Tocqueville called the political environment in America even in the 1800s similar to two "nations" or "peoples" forced together.

PlasmaHam
November 11th, 2016, 07:02 PM
I don't think that violent protests through vandalism in rioting is a major thing yet. Regardless of if it will be or not, you're exaggerating what is currently happening.
Have you not read the news? Anti-Trump protesters are vandalizing and violently protesting in Oakland, CA. (http://louderwithcrowder.com/california-anti-trump-rioting/)

Anti-Trump protesters, called "rioters" and "anarchists" by the police, vandalize and incite a riot in Portland, Oregon.
(http://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/scenes-vandalism-riot-anti-trump-protest-portland-n682431)
I know that most protests are not violent. But I do not see how saying that some Clinton supporters are violently protesting Trump is "exaggerating" when even the liberal news outlets are reporting these protests as riots.

I can also ask you why you won't go personally to help in building the presumptive wall-to-be, because you are for Trump. Well, I am not terrorized to death that illegal immigrants are going to come kill me or oppress my liberties, so I don't plan on doing anything.

Furthermore, the presence of Muslims is not the same as the presence of a government's sharia law 'around' you. Your point? Clinton has freely accepted donations from Qatar, a nation that still has an African slave trade and is under Sharia Law. This has nothing to do your presumed view that I think all Muslims are terrorists. It wouldn't matter if Qatar was a secular nation. Clinton took donations from a nation that has legalized racism, sexism, homophobia, religious discrimination, and prohibitions of personal liberties. This has nothing to do with Islam, so please don't devolve it into such.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that being a Muslim analytically implies wholesome support for sharia law.
I was very clearly talking about Qatar, which is under Sharia Law. Whether or not his Muslim friends actively supported Sharia Law, they were still be protected by it. Please stop trying to make this an Islam debate
There is presence of airy-fairy viewpoints around for sure, but not across what you're saying it is. You keep making up the fairy tale that I have no sense of logical reasoning when I refer to a collective group. When I say "Silly Liberals" I am not talking about all liberals, when I say "Generation Snowflake" I am not talking about all teenagers and twenty-somethings. When I say that the extreme fears of Trump are unjustified, I am not saying that there are not some legitimate fears. I hope you will quit following this clearly annoying and irrelevant avenue of twisting my words to help your argument.

I am curious, what exactly am I saying this is? Because you clearly know more about my own opinions than myself apparently.
Yes, I know. I do not think the protests against Trump's victory are justified either. We should really direct that energy at the electoral college.
Its funny, when Trump challenged the election process, the liberal media mocked him, saying that the election process was entirely fair and trying to fight against it was undemocratic. Now, with Trump taking a very surprising win, the media is now saying the election process is entirely wrong and should be seriously re-evaluated. I am not really trying to make an argument here, I just found this a funny but sad reflection on media bias and the hypocrisy of many in power.

Paraxiom
November 11th, 2016, 08:17 PM
Yes, I know. I do not think the protests against Trump's victory are justified either. We should really direct that energy at the electoral college.

Agreed.


I agree. I was actually reading "Democracy in America" and de Tocqueville called the political environment in America even in the 1800s similar to two "nations" or "peoples" forced together.

I didn't know it was even a thing then, so I've learned that now.


Have you not read the news? Anti-Trump protesters are vandalizing and violently protesting in Oakland, CA. (http://louderwithcrowder.com/california-anti-trump-rioting/)

Anti-Trump protesters, called "rioters" and "anarchists" by the police, vandalize and incite a riot in Portland, Oregon.
(http://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/scenes-vandalism-riot-anti-trump-protest-portland-n682431)
I know that most protests are not violent. But I do not see how saying that some Clinton supporters are violently protesting Trump is "exaggerating" when even the liberal news outlets are reporting these protests as riots.

Then the riots are starting, alright then. There happens that prediction.

Saying that some Clinton supporters are rioting is not an exaggeration at all, definitely. I got the impression of you being general by not saying some.


Well, I am not terrorized to death that illegal immigrants are going to come kill me or oppress my liberties, so I don't plan on doing anything.

Similarly, some people who have a stance of tolerance for religion-invariant immigration don't have a plan to migrate to a certain religious country to prove that stance to others (whatever that would do).


Your point? Clinton has freely accepted donations from Qatar, a nation that still has an African slave trade and is under Sharia Law.

Oh I'm sure she has. I'm do not like Clinton at all.

(Is it a relevant possible-counterexample too though that the Bush Administration had intimate deals with Saudi Arabia, if you are a Republican? Mainly wondering here.)


This has nothing to do your presumed view that I think all Muslims are terrorists.

I am presuming that you did not think well of Muslims, from what you've generally said in the past. If I am wrong then I'm fine with you clarifying.


It wouldn't matter if Qatar was a secular nation. Clinton took donations from a nation that has legalized racism, sexism, homophobia, religious discrimination, and prohibitions of personal liberties. This has nothing to do with Islam, so please don't devolve it into such.

What Clinton has done would not surprise me, if she has done all of these things. I certainly don't like her as I expect she has done many wrong things, but I don't intend to see if all of them are true - I don't need to to not like her, not now anyway.

I don't ever try to devolve anything into Islam. Excuse me that I thought your perceptions of Islam were relevant here, because Muslims were mentioned in the immediate next sentence after the one with Qatar, when you were talking about Clinton. Hardly a jump of devolution.


I was very clearly talking about Qatar, which is under Sharia Law. Whether or not his Muslim friends actively supported Sharia Law, they were still be protected by it. Please stop trying to make this an Islam debate

You were talking about Qatar, yes. Irrelevant to whether I accept what you say with Sharia Law and Muslims under it, you connected the two with Qatar, and at the same time you don't want me to literally mention Islam.

I'll move on.


You keep making up the fairy tale that I have no sense of logical reasoning when I refer to a collective group.

I think that you make more generalisations from my point-of-view than you yourself do from yours, that's it. I'm not a fan of what I see as generalisation, as you can tell.

I should also say that there are people who have views which are more complex and argumentative than their summarised occasionally-emotive speaking of them appears to be. Basically, I've come across people who initially sound plainly irrationally generalistic and/or primarily hateful, but I then found that there was more to that than they initially said (not that it settled to anything like agreement between me and them).

My point is that there is a risk of people misinterpreting the language all of the time, and that is especially a thing when a certain person's 'end product' spoken ideas sound initially similar to others', except that the person's had significant argument behind it as well (if this is then known, their spoken ideas are retroactively seen to be subtly but critically different). Do you get me? Misinterpretation, don't get annoyed at me for not seeing the differences between your views and (I'll guess that, for now?) most other conservatives' views.


When I say "Silly Liberals" I am not talking about all liberals [...]

Alright then. The problem is that so many people do mean most/all liberals when they say something similar to / the same as that, hence what I just said.


[...] when I say "Generation Snowflake" I am not talking about all teenagers and twenty-somethings.

Well here that is the sort of picture I had in mind, I don't see that as unjustified, especially with 'generation' as part of it.


When I say that the extreme fears of Trump are unjustified, I am not saying that there are not some legitimate fears.

I agree that extreme fears of Drumpf are unjustified. I haven't said otherwise.


I hope you will quit following this clearly annoying and irrelevant avenue of twisting my words to help your argument.

Now you are really misinterpreting what I am saying. I didn't think I gave the impression of wanting to twist others' views here for my own supposed benefit.


I am curious, what exactly am I saying this is? Because you clearly know more about my own opinions than myself apparently.

No.


Its funny, when Trump challenged the election process, the liberal media mocked him, saying that the election process was entirely fair and trying to fight against it was undemocratic.

If you mean the part where Drumpf said that the election process could be rigged, that was irresponsible by him saying it was a thing without delving further, along with him knowing that there would be a big outcry if he did not win (perhaps riots?). I don't assume that the election system is not rigged, but saying that it could be rigged in that way was not justified.

The results anyhow would say otherwise, would they not?

I don't doubt liberal media's mocking of him, and I don't doubt that they see the system as entirely fair (which I don't see it to be, regardless of who would have won this election), but technically trying to fight against the democratic system would be undemocratic. They followed with their argument, subtracting their mockery of him and such of course.

(Can I note that you said the liberal media here? It covers liberal media as whole, can I infer?)


Now, with Trump taking a very surprising win, the media is now saying the election process is entirely wrong and should be seriously re-evaluated.

Which media?

Whichever media is saying so is clearly unjustified, if they were alright with the system until Drumpf's victory was known.


I am not really trying to make an argument here, I just found this a funny but sad reflection on media bias and the hypocrisy of many in power.

That is widespread worldwide, yes.

phuckphace
November 12th, 2016, 12:11 AM
WGomGRZIDIE

Rendez-Vous
November 12th, 2016, 04:00 AM
Trump isn't a president yet, right? America have weird election system, can't this 2XX electoral voters vote against Trump? Or now Trump will be American president for 100% sure?

lyhom
November 12th, 2016, 04:30 AM
Trump isn't a president yet, right? America have weird election system, can't this 2XX electoral voters vote against Trump? Or now Trump will be American president for 100% sure?

they technically could but it wouldn't be worth the inevitable stink it would cause

ethan-s
November 12th, 2016, 08:28 PM
Democrats before election: Donald is off his rocker for saying election is rigged
Democrats after election: the election was rigged, we don't like the result, let's riot and loot.:confused:

ThisBougieLife
November 15th, 2016, 08:42 PM
^Well, I think Trump has changed his tune about how "rigged" the system is as well. Calling the system "rigged" is simply a safeguard so that if you lose, you have something else to blame other than yourself. The motives are transparent.

ethan-s
November 16th, 2016, 09:16 AM
It kind of was, in essence. All the news agencies threaded hillary like a queen and Donald like trash. Not that I'm supporting Don or anything...

Porpoise101
November 16th, 2016, 05:42 PM
Trump isn't a president yet, right? America have weird election system, can't this 2XX electoral voters vote against Trump? Or now Trump will be American president for 100% sure?
Short answer: Trump will be president

Long answer:
Trump isn't President yet. Technically he hasn't been elected yet because the Electors vote in December. And after that he'll be inaugurated in January. He is most likely going to be the President simply because the Electors are chosen by the parties. In fact there are two sets of electors for every state, one Republican and one Democrat. But when the Republicans win Pennsylvania for example, the Democrat set is dismissed. So the result is that the winner of the November election already has at least 270 electors (the threshold) which come from the same party as him. Since the electors are party loyalists, there's no way enough will deviate from Trump, and even less chance they would vote for Clinton. Some states go further (like mine), and will cancel the vote if the Electors stray from the people's choice. So while there is a possibility that Trump could still lose, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

Kahn
November 18th, 2016, 07:10 AM
Trump isn't President yet. Technically he hasn't been elected yet because the Electors vote in December. And after that he'll be inaugurated in January. He is most likely going to be the President simply because the Electors are chosen by the parties. In fact there are two sets of electors for every state, one Republican and one Democrat. But when the Republicans win Pennsylvania for example, the Democrat set is dismissed. So the result is that the winner of the November election already has at least 270 electors (the threshold) which come from the same party as him. Since the electors are party loyalists, there's no way enough will deviate from Trump, and even less chance they would vote for Clinton. Some states go further (like mine), and will cancel the vote if the Electors stray from the people's choice. So while there is a possibility that Trump could still lose, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

http://www.jimcarreyonline.com/img/recent/news/carrey274.jpg

satarra3180
November 19th, 2016, 11:17 PM
Democrats before election: Donald is off his rocker for saying election is rigged
Democrats after election: the election was rigged, we don't like the result, let's riot and loot.:confused:

With all due respect, I have not seen anyone suggest the election was "rigged". The debate between doing away with the electoral college and moving forward with just the popular vote has been going on for a couple decades. Of course it is going to get more attention after an election like this.

ethan-s
November 20th, 2016, 09:26 AM
Just for the record, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. People need to stop whining about how we have a democratic system when we do not.

Porpoise101
November 21st, 2016, 06:56 PM
Just for the record, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. People need to stop whining about how we have a democratic system when we do not.
You can have a representative republic without the electoral college.

PlasmaHam
November 21st, 2016, 08:10 PM
This talk of getting rid of the electoral college coming from the left seems so hypocritical. Besides the obvious hypocrisy of bashing Trump when he called for election reform, isn't one of the main pillars of the Leftist ideology standing up for the minority? But I guess that only applies if that minority is largely composed of Democrats, of which rural white folks don't apply. Just imagine the hissy fit Democrats would be having if Republicans decided to shift voting power away from largely Black and Hispanic areas.

I am reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson describing the dangers of a direct democracy,"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." That was an obvious fear of the Founding Fathers, one of the reasons why every state has equal amount of Senators. I see this talk of electoral college change as being based more off Trump rage than actual logic, but I guess it is "Liberal Logic (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2032324)";)

The Democrats should focus more on reforming their party's clearly flawed presidential primary voting process, which is obviously and clearly set up to elect whoever the DNC wants and not the people.

A little picture I found explaining pretty clearly the Democrat's view of the Electoral College. And their obsession with calling anyone or anything that they don't like racist and/or sexist.
http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/15094938_1167095193405098_2352515437262874039_n-500x374.jpg

ThisBougieLife
November 22nd, 2016, 11:52 AM
^For once I agree with you, PlasmaHam. While I will not claim that the electoral college system is perfect, this whining about it is no better than what Trump did on Twitter during the 2012 election. The losers always complain about the electoral college. There will need to be more than sore feelings if there is to be a reform of this system.

In other news:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-clinton-investigation-kellyanne-conway-231735

"Breitbart Slams Trump over 'broken promises' on jailing Clinton"

I'm literally LOL'ing right now. For all the fears of white nationalism and Fuhrer Trump, in all likelihood Trump is just going to be a big underwhelming disappointment, to people on both sides.

Vlerchan
November 22nd, 2016, 02:11 PM
Connected to the above: Read the first and third bullet point.

https://images.scribblelive.com/2016/11/22/3d63d1f5-5e6e-451c-957e-591a974a98bd_400.jpg

Lol at just the entire situation.

Porpoise101
November 22nd, 2016, 04:13 PM
This talk of getting rid of the electoral college coming from the left seems so hypocritical. Besides the obvious hypocrisy of bashing Trump when he called for election reform, isn't one of the main pillars of the Leftist ideology standing up for the minority? But I guess that only applies if that minority is largely composed of Democrats, of which rural white folks don't apply. Just imagine the hissy fit Democrats would be having if Republicans decided to shift voting power away from largely Black and Hispanic areas.

I am reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson describing the dangers of a direct democracy, That was an obvious fear of the Founding Fathers, one of the reasons why every state has equal amount of Senators. I see this talk of electoral college change as being based more off Trump rage than actual logic, but I guess it is "Liberal Logic (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2032324)";)

While that is a legitimate concern, to actually take away the key rights afforded to people, you would need a supermajority to repeal amendments to the constitution. And to Jefferson, would it not be a greater tragedy if the 48% dictated to the the other 52%? Because that is exactly what happened this time. I don't think the minority really is being protected in this case either. This depends on what you consider to be a minority of course. But giving certain people more of a voice than others is not protection, instead it is over-promotion of one group compared to another. Even if you do consider this a protection of the rural and depopulated areas consider this: the liberals in Austin, TX and the conservative 'rural white folks', as you put it, in Kern County, CA will essentially count for nothing in a presidential election. This hurts everyone who doesn't win, and especially those who do not have a chance of winning in their state. In the electoral college, the purple states dictate the rules, and all political minorities confined by an obsolete idea of 'state-ness' suffer.

The Democrats should focus more on reforming their party's clearly flawed presidential primary voting process, which is obviously and clearly set up to elect whoever the DNC wants and not the people.

I disagree. The party should have a say in choosing its candidate. Otherwise, some idiot businessman can just show up, flood the system with a rabid following, and hijack the party. Parties should define themselves to a degree. If a person who is popular falls outside of that party, they should make their own and make a dent in the two-party control we have.

Instead, both parties really have to work on encouraging more voters to show up at the primaries. This way, the influx of people from a random populist will make less of a dent against normal, more moderate types (who, by the way, do not show up to primaries as much). To give you an idea, only about 14% of voters voted in a primary. That is terrible.

A little picture I found explaining pretty clearly the Democrat's view of the Electoral College. And their obsession with calling anyone or anything that they don't like racist and/or sexist.
image (http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/15094938_1167095193405098_2352515437262874039_n-500x374.jpg)

What you've done here is an excellent demonstration of a really big issue with people using the Internet nowadays, and especially with political news. Instead of going further and actually reading these articles, you chose to just read the headlines and not go into detail. Yet, you've committed an even worse sin somehow. You decided to present the information as a meme, so you probably didn't even think about the idea expressed there.

There is a lot wrong with this, so I decided to actually go to those articles. I would have just ignored it, but my government teacher actually assigned me to read one of those articles the other day (guess), so I am pretty keen. First up, Slate is a liberal news site, just like HuffPost, and a litany of other propagandist websites. Second, these websites do not have an 'official viewpoint' usually in their opinion sections. There are always a bunch of different columnists with different views.

The one arguing in favor of the Electoral College was a Law Prof named Eric Posner. Even in the article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html), he admits flaws (as one should). The one arguing against it was someone named Mark Joseph Stern, and he is a gender and LGBT writer for Slate. I've only done two Google searches (one to get to each article) and I figured this out. The headline is clickbaity, for sure. But the arguments presented were quite interesting if you actually read it. In the article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/11/the_electoral_college_is_an_instrument_of_white_supremacy_and_sexism.html), he describes how even though electoral votes were distributed by full population, the Southern states didn't allow black people to vote, and were given more voice in the Electoral College after the 14th Amendment passed. In this way, the white voters of the South were given more electoral and political representation from the census count including black people as whole, allowing it to be a vehicle of white supremacy (indirectly). If people actually read the article, they may actually learn a thing or two.

While this little rant may be a lot, it's important to recognize that the media wants to attract, shock, etc with their headlines. If you aren't careful, you don't get the whole picture and you will be misinformed or uninformed.